I did say I didn’t agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.

That’s obviously not what I’m saying exactly. If you’re interested check out Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You

I’m not arguing who’s the better man, I’m arguing who’s the better groups of people when both are championing iniquity despite their justifications for it. In my opinion neither, considering iniquity to any degree to be nothing but that. I do agree of course it’s necessary in plenty of situations, especially considering how barbaric and individualized we still are as a species, but never something to be praised, encouraged or championed to this degree. It wasn’t necessary to assassinate yet another CEO in contrast to these more necessary extremes like Hitler for example; he was the farthest thing from a Hitler, thus of course not entitled to the same response. Luigi only put additional influence of violence and hate in the world, handing it over to those that loved the man he murdered, and the wake of their hate influencing others. Like all those that praise this man for stooping down to their level to eliminate the problem.

Healthcare is just doing what any other industry is meant to do: profit. As long as this is the emphasis the problem will continue to persist. So it’s not a matter of how many individuals we eliminate it’s more a matter of how many minds we change. Minds aren’t changed when they’re being threatened, insulted or screamed at; only the opposite has that ability.

I hope someday I can say the same for you my friend.

“Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation.” That’s the context in which I’m speaking. That’s the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.

It’s definitely an incredibly helpful one, that’s for sure. I agree it’s my opinion but yours falls more in line of that of a murderers considering you’re saying that there are circumstances when murder should be championed. Which begs the lesson I wish I would’ve made my original comment to connotate more efficiently: who’s the real bad guy when both are celebrating debately equally as terrible acts?

Violence didn’t result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn’t just standing by and doing nothing, it’s about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.

I even put cereal killer instead of serial lmao

Lol you’re right I think over exaggerated the numbers in my mind for some reason, disregard that.

“India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947) was shaped by influential leaders who are called Freedom Fighters of India like Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered nonviolent resistance”

Those riots wouldn’t have had any influence whatsoever, along with so much of all the other things done outside of the influence of MLK’s nonviolent influence, if it wasn’t for him sitting down with the president himself, and pressuring him via calm mindedness logic and reason, not to mention organizing the biggest moment in the entire movement by far.

cough India’s independence, Jim Crow Laws. cough cough

My friend. I absolutely did not say what you said that I said. Again, I said: people championing a rapist on one side, and the other championing a murderer—what’s the difference?

We have yet to see. 9/11 ring any bells?

What does that have to do with the relevance of returning the evil of that war with good?

This still doesn’t prove the irrelevance of it becasue who can say what else would’ve happened if evils to this degree were met with equal parts good?

I thought we were talking about war here? More specifically even murdering a CEO as a matter of fact. Of course that person should be trying to escape, people have a tendency of not looking at this idea reasonably, and especially to ge off topic and use these specific situations where of course we should be using any means necessary to get ourselves out in that situation. I didn’t realize world peace rested on this women trying to change the mind of this one serial killer apparently, I’m assuming.

I’m sorry if I’ve insulted you in anyway, I’m not here to hate. So if I’ve offended you in anyway I genuinely apologize and I’m sorry about how you feel towards my sentiments, please consider considering them again sometime in the future.

Happy new year my friend and good day to you.

How does naming all of that answer my question?

Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life: “The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5

Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spirtual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X

Check this out, Tolstoy’s Personal, Social, and Divine Conceptions to life:

“The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherent the Earth.” - Jesus, Matt 5:5

Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spiritual that. One that consists of a more philosophical interpretation of The Gospels that’s hiding underneath all the dogma ever since Paul. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount, debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you’re interested. This translation I’ve found to be the best:

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X

How does this answer my question? I’m not following.

This is regarding a circumstance in the midst of your point view, of how we would typically respond to evil inherently—in the midst of battle, etc.

I’m referring to going about it in a more organized, collective manner; especially one that makes it very clear who the bad guys really are, and why were doing it especially. A way that quite frankly, I’m wildly ignorant to, because of not only how little this idea has been practiced throughout the centuries due to our inherency to the opposite—and I’ll admit it’s ability to hold up nowadays with nuclear bombs and still so much oath taking going on and how little the relevance of selflessness is from becoming common knowledge; it makes it all very doubtful. But honestly, I’d rather die giving up my life for a cause with the most amount of potential for peace behind it, opposed to the one thats lead the to the need for anyones life needing to be taken in the first place, that would otherwise lead God awful amounts of men to be forced into dying in my stead, or to be yet another amoungst the cattle bring butchered in war myself.

Resisting what an attacker expects back is far from doing nothing. The trickle of love or hate in the world begins and ends with the individual. I’m not saying stand by and watch as the world burns, I’m saying resist what would otherwise lead its inevitable destruction anyway, and what lead to it beginning to burn in the first place, in any circumstance, now and forever.

To hate back is to only fan this flame, and accelerate this process, and decelerate any potential for the opposite; of peace.